Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education

Volume 2
Number 10 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education Article 3
Vol. 2, No. 10 (Fall/Winter 2012)

Fall 2012

Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of

Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Settings
Ida M. Malian Ph.D.
Arizona State University, imalian@asu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons,
Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Special Education Administration Commons, and the
Special Education and Teaching Commons

Repository Citation
Malian, I. M. (2012). Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Settings, Electronic Journal for
Inclusive Education, 2 (10).

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact corescholar@www.libraries.wright.edu.
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
1

Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabilities in

Inclusive Settings

Ida M. Malian, Ph. D

Professor of Special Education
Arizona State University

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 1

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
2

Abstract

This qualitative study observed bullying patterns and trends of students with and
without disabilities in inclusive settings. The participants were fourth grade
students eligible for receiving special education services in inclusive , resource and
self-contained settings. Qualitative data were collected while students were in class
and during specials and non-academic times. The data suggests that students with
disabilities are bullied and are themselves bullies at times. There appeared to be a
relationship between personal characteristics and the incidence of bullying. Further,
adult intervention was reported to be lax during incidences f bullying. Educational
implications for schools, teachers and teacher educators are presented.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 2
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
3

Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabilities in

Inclusive Settings

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of bullying, in its various forms, in public schools continues to

be not only a problem for local school districts but also at the national level. A

review of the research literature yields 74 peer-reviewed publications 54 in journals,

11 books and 9 reports in the period between 1992-2011. A review of the research

literature yields multiple definitions. To be sure, each state, local school district

endorses its own specific definition of bullying in the context of schools. Oleweus

has brought the issue of bullying to the forefront through his seminal works. He

proffers that “Every individual should have the right to be spared oppression and

repeated intentional humiliation, in school as in society at large” (1993,) p.427). As a

result Olweus (1993) states, “A person is being bullied or victimized when he or she

is exposed, repeatedly and overtime, to negative actions on the part of one or more

persons (Olweus, 1993. P.413). His definition has been accepted and supplemented

by many researchers. (Bernstein & Watson, 1997; Cantu & Heumann, 2000). A more

recent variation has been suggested by Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-

Morton, and Scheidt (2001) as a: “specific type of aggression in which (1) the

behavior is intended to harm or disturb, (2) the behavior occurs repeatedly over

time, and (3) there is an imbalance of power, with a more powerful person or group

attacking a less powerful one” (Nansel et al., 2001, p. 2085). Funneling the definition

to specific targets Hoover & Stenhjem (2003) suggests, “bullying consists of a series

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 3

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
4

of repeated, intentional, cruel incidents between the same children who are in the

same bully and victim roles” (p.2).

This study will employ the Hoover and Stenhjem definition and qualitatively

observe the patterns of bullying among elementary school students in general

education and receiving special education.

The notion of humiliation, taunting, stealing, spreading rumors, hitting,

kicking, poking and most recently electronic harassment have been added to the mix.

Arizona has recently added “Bullying” as any written, verbal or physical act or any

electronic communication that is intended to harm a student. DeVoe, Bauer &Hill

(2010) issued a report entitled Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results From

the 2007 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. The

study found that in the school year 2006–07, about 4.3 percent of students ages 12

through 18 reported that they were victims of any crime at school. Three percent

reported being victims of theft, 1.6 percent of students reported a violent victimization,

and 0.4 percent of students reported a serious violent victimization. Thirty-eight percent

of student victims of any crime reported the presence of gangs at school compared to 22.6

percent of students who were no victims. About 42.8 percent of students who reported

violent crime victimization reported having been in a physical fight at school, compared

to 5.9 percent of students who were nonvictims. Higher percentages of students who

reported any criminal victimization at school reported they were the targets of traditional

(62.2 percent) and electronic (11.6 percent) bullying than were nonvictims (30.4 percent

and 3.3 percent, respectively).( Hoover & Oliver 1996). Many researchers state that in

their investigations, 75% to 90% of students looking back over their school careers

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 4
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
5

report that they suffered harassment at the hands of fellow students. As many as

15% of 4th -8th grades may have been severely distressed by bullying (Hazler,

Hoover & Oliver, 1991; Hoover, Oliver & Hazler, 1992; Hoover, Oliver & Thomson,

1993). These figures increase exponentially as the incidences of bullying are unreported

by students that occur beyond the schools. Cyber Bullying underscores both the increase

in reported and mostly unreported incidences of bullying. Willard (2007) describes cyber

bullying as “being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful material or engaging in

other forms of social aggression using the Internet or other digital technologies”(p. 1).

She listed eight different forms of cyber bullying:

1. Flaming: Online fights using electronic messages with angry and vulgar language.

2. Harassment: Repeatedly sending nasty, mean, and insulting messages.

3. Denigration: “Dissing” someone online. Sending or posting gossip or rumors about a

person to damage his or her reputation or friendships.

4. Impersonation: Pretending to be someone else and sending or posting material to get

that person in trouble or danger or to damage that person’s reputation or friendships.

5. Outing: Sharing someone’s secrets or embarrassing information or images online.

6. Trickery: Talking someone into revealing secrets or embarrassing information or

images online.

7. Exclusion: Intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group.

8. Cyber stalking: Repeated, intense harassment and denigration that includes threats or

creates significant fear. (p. 1–2).

A study by Shafer, Korn, Smith, Hunter, Mora-Merchan, Singer, & Van der

Meulen (2004), investigated the stability of victimization from primary to secondary

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 5

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
6

school, found that those students who were continuously bullied had lower self-

esteem than the control group or those only bullied in primary or secondary school.

This demonstrates that experiencing bullying for several years reasonably

introduces the possibility that this long duration could result in harmful effects.

Hoover & Oliver (1996) reported that both males and females students who were

bullied perceived the reason as not “fitting in” This was true of both genders at 4-8th

grades and 8-12 grades. The second most common reason for being bullied was

reported to be a result of their friendships. Further, victims reported being anxious,

insecure and having reported self-esteem. Putting these findings in the context of

the inclusion movement to educate students with disabilities in the general

education class creates another layer of potential bullying. In fact the very reasons

given by the victims of bullying-not fitting in and association with friends parallels

the notion of students in special education an their respective peers. In fact, Roberts

& Smith (1999) found that children generally have a negative attitude towards their

peers with disabilities.

The research related to disabilities and bullying is emerging. Kaukianinen,

Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Tamminen, Make, & Poskiparta (2002) ; Torrence (1997),

Whitney, Nabuzoka & Smith 1992 have reported Prevalence). Bowman (2001)

suggested that students with disabilities have a greater likelihood of being

victimized by bullying. Regardless of disability Bullying has been reported at a

higher rate than with non0disabled students. Intellectual disabilities (Reiter&

Lapidot-Lefler 2007;McGrath, Jones, & Hastings 2010); Emotional and behavior

disorders (Frances & Potter 2010),); Aspergers’s Syndrome (Biggs, Simpson & Gauss

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 6
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
7

(2010). Whitney (1994) suggested that bullying was related to disabilities and that

bullying occurs regardless of disability (Mishap 2003, Yule, Goodman and

McConachie 1998; Martlew, & Hodson 1991; Dixon 2006; Biggs, Simpson & Gaus

2010). Sweeting & West (2001) suggested that less attractive, overweight, disabled

and poor school performers were more likely to be bullied. Those students with

visible disabilities have been targeted (Dawkins, 1996) as well as students with

attention deficit disorders (Unnever & Cornell, 2004). Marini, Fairbairn & Zuber

2001) reported that “children with disabilities are at least twice as likely to be

bullied than their nondisabled peers” (p.175). Gil & Costa (2010) similarly stated

that children with disabilities more likely to encounter violence and victimization-

further suggesting that inclusion may exacerbate this bullying. Luciano & Savage

(2007) found that students with learning disabilities self-reported significantly

more incidents of being bullied than their non-disabled peers. Taylor (2012)

suggested that all students are susceptible to bullying but that student with

disabilities are more susceptible due to “characteristic that place them on either

side of the bullying issue, be it as a bully or victim of bullying” (p. 1). Estell, Farmer,

Irvin, Crowther, Akos, Boudah (2009) found that teachers rated students with

moderate disabilities as bullied significantly more than peers. Martlew and Hodson

(1991) corroborated this study by reporting that students with learning disabilities

were had fewer friends and were teased significantly more than non-learning

disabled peers. Other studies of students with learning disabilities, regardless of

placement have shown higher incidence of bullying than their non-disabled peers,

(Nabuzoka & Smith 1993; Sabornie 1994;Morrison, Furlong & Smith 1994 Whitney,

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 7

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
8

Nabuzoka & Smith 1992; McNamara, Vervaeke & Willoughby, 2008). Cross

categorical disabilities are also targets of bullying,(Cummings, Pepler, Mishna &

Craig 2006). In fact, Mishna (2003) suggested that, “along with the effects of low

social status and poor peer relationships, rejection by peers leaves students with

learning disabilities unprotected and susceptible to further victimization”

(p.337).Carlson, Flannery & Kral (2005) concurred that students in special

education reported more incidents of bullying than general education attending

peers. Further, if students with disabilities had friends in general education and

were liked then this was associated with less bullying. These types of bullying are

direct (physical and verbal) and indirect (spreading rumors).

A comparative analysis of bullying among students in special education and

general education was conducted by Rose, Espelage & Monda-Amaya (2009). They

found that students in special education classes reported greater incidences of

bullying than reported by students in general education classes. Specifically

students receiving education in self-contained classes reported more incidences of

bullying than those students in inclusive classes. In general it was reported that over

18% of students with disabilities in inclusive classes reported being bullied. This

same number also reported assuming the role of bully. The theme of “fitting in” and

core of friends that student associated with seems to merge again as a factor in

targeted bullying. Additionally Egan & Perry (1998) suggested that their peers do

typically not accept students that are bullied. Others have suggested that bullied

students tend to lack friends in school (Olweus 1994). Conversely, students with

disabilities have also been identified as bulling others. Whitney (1993) found that

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 8
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
9

students with learning disabilities were as likely to bully as being bullied. Olweus

(2001) reported that anywhere between 10%-20% of those that are bullied are

bullies themselves.

The United Stated Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (2010) issued

an open letter stating that “A school is responsible for addressing harassment

incidents about which it know or reasonable should have known”. (p.2) The

involvement of the OCR’s involvement focused on the issue that some forms of

bullying, in addition to violating school anti-bullying policies may also come under

the jurisdiction of OCR, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, Title II of The

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Further, the open letter underscored

bullying as a subset of disability harassment by using terms as “stupid”, “idiot” and

“retard” in addition to physical abuse directed at students with disabilities. In

addition to bullying in class bullying has been reported to occur on the playground,

bathrooms, and hallways during transition to classes regardless of the level of

teacher presence. (Whitney & Smith 1993). In fact little if any intervention occurs

when bullying is witnessed. If there is intervention it is most likely peer-

intervention rather than adult. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine the

existence of bullying targeted at and by students with disabilities and the type of

bullying.

METHODOLOGY

This was a qualitative study of bullying of students with special needs in select

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 9

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
10

public schools. Eight, 4th grade students, two female and 6 male, ranging in age from

9 years old to 10 years old were observed on the playground, cafeteria, resource

room, general education classroom during transitions and during specials.

Observations were conducted in a variety of settings where students with

disabilities would interact with typical peers. The primary handicapping condition

for most students was learning disabilities. Other eligibility categories included

autism, hearing impairment, and moderate mental retardation and health

impairments. Observational data was collected over 3 weeks through verbatim

scripting, descriptive field notes, and journaling. The students were eligible for

special educations services for learning disabilities, autism, moderate mental

retardation and health impairment. The operational definition for the study was

adopted from Hoover & Stenhjem’s (2003) as “consisting of a series of repeated,

intentional, cruel incidents between the same children who are in the same bully

and victim roles”. Observers piloted observations and completed reliability checks

(.89 reliability).

Qualitative data including field notes and journal entries will be analyzed to

determine emerging themes using the constant comparative method (Strauss &

Corbin, 1999). In this procedure, open and axial coding will be used to initially

identify concepts and then develop subsequent categories that represent

phenomena related to the data. After a theme is identified, quotes from the field

notes or journal entries will be used to substantiate and support the theme. These

qualitative data will be used to augment and support the quantitative data. To

ensure trustworthiness of these procedures, member checks were also employed.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 10
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
11

In this study, data analysis occurred after data was collected. Open coding occurred by

developing preliminary concepts from initial analysis of meaning units and then forming

these concepts into themes by the researcher. Open coding involved reading through the

transcripts line-by-line and highlighting information that indicated common themes,

patterns and verbatim exemplars.. During this process, numerous readings of the text

were done in order to acquire a sense of the content of the transcripts. The highlighted

information became initial themes that were labeled with the terms Antecedent Rituals,

Attention Seeking, and Retaliation.

The second stage of examination, axial coding, involved making connections

between themes and more precise categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 97). Weiss and

Lloyd (2002, p. 63) state when performing axial coding, “The researcher identifies the

causal conditions (events or incidents that lead to the occurrence of a phenomenon),

contexts (specific set of properties that pertain to a phenomenon), intervening conditions

(broad and general conditions that influence the strategies taken), and consequences of

actions involved in each category”. ( Weiss & Lloyd, 2002 p. 63). The goal is to discover

and connect categories in terms of the theory being established (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

During this stage the researcher looked beyond the themes and developed smaller units of

analysis called sub-themes. Sub-themes were more precise descriptions that presented

themselves throughout the transcript. Finally, once themes and categories were defined

selective coding occurred with the intent of integrating all of the data by placing each

category developed during axial coding into a theme. The intent with this stage was to

discover and relate categories in terms of the theory being developed by the themes

already previously identified (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 11

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
12

RESULTS

This qualitative inquiry employed a constant comparative method utilizing

and open and co-axial coding of the qualitative data- specifically the descriptive field

notes, verbatim scripts and observer journals. Several common themes emerged

through the analyses. Observations of the student with disabilities that experienced

bullying. These prominent themes were ritual bullying; attention seeking; isolation;

verbal antecedents, superiority and retaliation.

Antecedent Rituals emerged as a qualitative theme. Students who exhibited a

ritualistic behavior, had idiosyncratic behaviors, which were performed habitually,

were more likely to be bullied. These typical antecedent behaviors included, “She

must be first in line when transitioning to all activities”, “she must me in charge of

the tetherball each day”,” He must play 4-squares at lunch and recess”, “he throws

food at other students while on the playground everyday”.” students was not able to

complete assignment”, “the students was interrupted by a neighbor student’, “the

students became annoyed at another students” were antecedents to the student

being targeted for bullying. These triggers were present in all cases prior to the

initiation of bullying. Bullying in these cases took the form of mocking the student

and disability. In most cases where bullying took place, there was a verbal

antecedent. The qualitative analysis revealed that that “some change of words or an

outburst has occurred”, “the outburst was followed by push”, “shove”, “and threat of

contact “. Other exemplars were noted as “he argues with other because he refuses

to leave after being put out of 4-square”,”the boys are playing in the sand, he

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 12
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
13

approaches, says something to them, them they leap up and chase him” These were

recorded as antecedents that resulting in bullying.

Students also engaged in behaviors that revolved around the theme of

Attention Seeking. These behaviors, when exhibitive, were also targeted to be

bullying. Field notes captured behaviors as “utterances while raising hand”,

“tattling”, “calling out”, disrupting the flow of the teaching/learning process”., “he

talks baby talk to the girls”, “he dares the boys to chase him”, “he interrupts other

field games to annoy the other students”, “she yells at the other students to stop

running around”. The attention was rarely positive and resulted in antagonizing

peers and annoying adults.

A corresponding theme that also emerged was Retaliation. The students that

were the target of bullies seemed to counter by involving the bully in behaviors that

would draw the attention of the teacher for possible negative consequences. Data

suggested that students with disabilities “deliberately lied or exaggerated in effort

to cause trouble for other students:. Further examples involved “creating

circumstances where injury occurred in the immediate vicinity of adult supervision”.

Interestingly, observation notes suggested that “teachers were not as receptive to

tattling about bullying as they were about other infractions”. Additional exemplars

were noted as” he flips off the boys that were mean to him”, “the 4th grader and his

friend targeted the 5th grader who previously pick on them, calling him a “retard”

and “after failed attempts to positively interact with peers, he chases them with his

wheelchair”.

Isolation emerged as a theme as students appeared to seek isolation from

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 13

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
14

peers and at the same time was then marginalized by their peers. Both students

with and without disabilities exhibited this marginalization, which is also a form of

bullying, towards student with disabilities. The qualitative data is inconclusive as to

whether the self-imposed isolation occurred first followed by the marginalization of

vise-versa. It appears that the students” were ignored or belittled by peers” when

attempting to interact or play”, “some students with disabilities sought to play by

themselves”,” he plays alone at the water fountain” “in the computer class, the

teacher must make a student be his partner” Students will not sit by her at lunch”,

“She waits in line with no interaction with peers”, “no cluster of integrated students

(disabled and typical) were involved with each other”. In most cases it was reported

that the students with disabilities who were isolated lacked a peer support group.

An interesting theme that emerged from the analyses of field notes was that of

superiority or importance. The students with disabilities felt that they were better

than the typical students in ways other than physical strength or popularity. Notes

indicate that “ when the student had the teaches attention or were receiving some

treatment that could be interrupted as preferential-the students check to see if

typical peers were noticing”. At times there seemed to be “bragging” about the

attention. “he roams the playground while other are on the wall for misbehavior”

and stating repeatedly “actually I already knew how to do that”. Although these

behavior contributed to a sense of importance-that in turn elicited resentment that

led to bullying by the typical peers.

There was one student who was an outlier. There were no recorded incidences

of bullying displayed by or towards this students. He was well liked and “interacted

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 14
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
15

successfully with his typical and disabled peers., “his disability was visible and

impaired his ability to communicate”. He also seemed more tolerant as students

bumped r pushed him, accidentally, he did not respond nor react in any manner. He

seemed to “have a good sense of humor and was not overly sensitive about good

natured teasing” which other students viewed as bullying and reacted. In turn.

Additionally the notion of acceptance by other students was present. He

participated in activities and games and “interacted with non-disabled peers during

recess”. Further, he did not seem to “display any behaviors to attract negative

attention “he took turns, waited patiently, won without gloating and lost without

crying”. It appeared that his positive personality and likeable manner precluded him

from crating or inviting bullying. An interesting aside was that teachers referred to

him as a “student leader” which behaviors that other students tended to model.

DISCUSSION

General observations revealed that the students had physical characteristics

that set then apart from their typical peers. They were either larger or smaller in

stature, had glasses or hearing aids, used a wheelchairs and /or had mannerisms

that called attention to their “differentness”. In fact, one male student with a

physical handicap that results in the use of a wheelchair would mention his accident

and resulting injuries to avoid negative consequences for a previous behavior. This

student was a bully and victim. He “frequently used physical and verbal aggression

towards his peers. It was noted that the student “used his wheelchair as a weapon”.

Several students had communication issues, which may have increased the

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 15

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
16

likelihood of being targeted. The data found that a student disability was “so

significant and his responses to verbal provocation so visible that he was targeted

frequently. This student’s poor verbal skills and “inability to appropriately interact”,

“his response to provocation drew negative attention from his peers”. This negative

attention resulted in isolation and marginalization. In terms of isolation the victims

may not understand that the isolation is due to their behavior. The provocative

victim then continues to annoy and provoke peers so they are shunned even more.

However, they do not understand what they are doing is a direct result of the

behaviors advance towards them. In each observed event the students were being

ignored, belittled, threatened or experiencing physical contact in the presence of an

adult supervisors. The adult supervisor ignored and imposed no consequence to

the student offender or the target of bullying. The lack of intervention by the

teachers and supervising adults when bullying behavior was observed gave tacit

permission to continue. Hence, the victim did not complain and the bully did nit feel

that the behavior was wrong. To be sure, there were two students with disabilities

who assumed the roles as bullies and victims. The first was the student who was

using his wheelchair as a weapon as, previously mentioned . The other was student

who was a past victim assumed the role of bully then his tormentor moved to

another school. It seems the “bully void” is filled as soon as it is created. Olweus

theorized that these students are both aggressively reactive and anxious. In essence

they are concurrently retaliatory and impulsive. (Olweus, 1993).

There were discreet and unique characteristics among the individual students

that were not represented the m themes that emerged. Some students were

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 16
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
17

reported to be immature when compared to other student in the resource room.

There were students that “occasionally spoke like a baby and could not control

outburst of excitement”. The presence of a disability did not necessarily predict

victimization or the engagement in bullying. Although each student had a disability

that may have caused him or her to be preyed upon, it was not that weakness that

drew the negative attention. It was, their “social” disability that targeted or caused

bullying. It is the bully/victim that represents the greatest threat to increase their

aggressive acting out whenever they feel victimized. Their personality

characteristics begin as victims and through a process that may take years they find

a way to retaliate against real or imagined bullying. Because they struggle with

social cues, it is likely they will misinterpret an incident or comments and respond

disproportionately.

Students that fail to thrive within their social environments may be more prone to

bully and/or be bullied. Their behaviors are often edgy and they are frequently

described as irritating and annoying by their peers. This is consistent with the

characteristics described as Olweus as provocative victims. (Olweus, 1993).

LIMITATIONS

This qualitative study was focused on 8 students with special needs over a three-

week period. A greater population, over a longer period of time would facilitate

appropriate generalization. A longer period of observational training for the

researchers would add the reliability of behavioral documentations. This will most

assuredly lead to other emergent themes. A focused study of the victim/bully may

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 17

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
18

lead to greater insight into the transitions from one persona to another. Studies

examining the integration of knowledge into curricular units would also provide

information regarding the efficacy of curricular modifications to address bullying.

Implementation of an RTI model for modification would be interesting to pursing to

provide a viable framework for intervention that is commonly used.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

It is imperative that public schools adopt effective school-wide, if not district

wide, intervention plans that seriously publicize and enforce a “zero tolerance”

stance for bullying in any form. The policy must also outline the specific

responsibilities of administrators, classroom teachers and supervising adults for

reporting and intervening when bullying is observed. Further, there must be

accountability when supervising adults do not take appropriate steps to prevent or

report bullying behavior. In order to break the cycle of “benign neglect” or “kids will

be kids”, educators must disabuse themselves of the belief that bullying is a normal

part f school life, a right of passage or the victim somehow deserved the attack.

Educators are critical to breaking the cycle of bullying. Teachers are often unaware

of the long-range effects of bullying and victimization. Further, they often do not

intervene when bullying is occurring. Professional development emphasizing what

constitutes bullying, appropriate intervention plans and classroom discussion

embedded in lesson should be conducted with appropriate follow-up in the

classroom. Hoover & Oliver (1996) suggested behavioral contracting, self

monitoring, rehearsal and imagery techniques, assertiveness and social skills

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 18
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
19

training Cooperative learning strategies, which creates on diverse cohorts can also

approach appropriate relationship building.

With all efforts there needs to be a collaborative partnership with parents to

make school resources available and provide for communication. It is imperative

that generalized bullying behavior from school to home is corrected and

management consistently for maximum effectiveness for correction. Additionally,

university professional teacher education program ,for both general and special

education, should include knowledge and skills in identifying bullying and it long-

term effects. Effective behavior management strategies to address bullying could be

incorporated into classes. Additionally, self-concept enhancement activities

implemented in the class can also address positive student interactions.

REFERENCES

Bernstein, J.Y., & Watson, M.W. (1997). Children who are targets of bullying: A victim
pattern. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, (4), 483-498.

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 19

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
20

Biggs, M.G., Simpson, C., & Gauss, M.D. (2010). Using a tem approach to address
bullying of students with Asperser’s syndrome in activity-based settings. Children &
Schools, 32 (3), 135-142.

Bowman, D.H. (2001). At school, a cruel culture. Education Week, 20 (27), 1-17.

Cantu, N.V., & Heumann, J.E. (2000). Memorandum on harassment based on

disability. Department of Education, ED 445 431.

Carlson, E.J., Flannery, M.C., & Kral, M.S. (2005). Differences in bullying/victim
problems between early adolescents with learning disabilities and their non-disabled
peers. Retrieved from University of Wisconsin-River Falls.

Carter, B.B., & Spencer, V.G. (2006). The fear factor: Bullying and students with
disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 21, (1), 11-20.

Cummings, J.G., Pepper, D.J. ,Mishap, F., & Craig, W.M. (2006). Bullying and
victimization among students with exceptionalities. Exceptionality Education Canada,
16, 193-222.

Dawkins, J.L. (1996). Bullying: Another form of abuse? Recent Advances in Pediatrics,
13, 103-122.

DeVoe, J.F., Bauer, L. & Hill, M.R. (2010)Student Victimization in U.S. Schools:
Results from 2007 School Crime Supplement to the Nation Crime Victimization
Survey. National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

Dixon, R. (2006). A framework for managing bullying that involves students who are
deaf or hearing impaired. Deafness Education International, 8, 11-32.

Egan, S.K. & Perry, D.C. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization?
Developmental Psychology, 34, 299-309.

Estelle, D.B., Framer,T.W., Irvin, M.J., Crowther, A. , Akos, P., Boudah, D.J. (2009).
Students with exceptionalities and peer group context of bullying and victimization
in late elementary school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 136-150.

Frances, J. & Potter, J. (2010). Differences and inclusion: Beyond disfigurement-The

impact of splitting on pupils’ social experience of inclusive education. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 15, 49-61.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 20
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
21

Gil, M. & Costa,, J. (2010). Students with disabilities in mainstream schools: District
Level perspectives on anti-bullying policy and practice within schools in Atlanta.
International Journal of Special Education, 25, 148-161.

Hazler, R.J., Hoover, J., & Oliver, R. (1991). Student perceptions of victimization in
schools. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 29(4) 5-15.

Hergert, L.F. (2004). Bullying and students with disabilities: Summary report on
parent focus groups. Retrieved from http://www.ihergert@edc.org.

Hoover, J., Oliver, R., & Hazler, J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims
in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5-16.

Hoover, J.H. , Oliver, R.L. & Thomson, A. (1993). Perceived victimization by school
bullies: New research and future direction. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 32,
76-84.

Hoover, J.H. & Stenhjem, P. (2003). Bullying and teasing of youths with disabilities:
Creating positive school environments for effective inclusion. Examining Current
Challenges in Secondary Education and Transition, 2, 1-7.

Hoover, J.H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The Bullying Prevention Handbook: A Guide for
Principals, Teachers, and Counselors. Bloomington, Indiana: National Educational
Service.

Kaukianinen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Make, H., & Poskiparta,
E. (2002). Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to
bully-victim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269-278.

Luciano, S. & Savage, R.S. (2007). Bullying risk in children with learning difficulties
in inclusive educational settings. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22, 14-31.

Marini, Z, Fairbairn, L., & Zuber, R. (2001). Peer harassment in individuals with
developmental disabilities: Towards the development of a multi-dimensional
bullying identification model. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 29 (2) 170-195.

Martlew, M. & Hodson, J. (1991). Children with mild difficulties in an integrated and
in a special school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers’ attitudes.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 355-372.

McGrath, L., Jones, R.S.P. & Hastings, R.P. (2010). Outcomes of anti-bullying
intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental
Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 376-380.

McNamara, J., Vervaeke, S., & Willoughby, T. (2008). Learning disabilities and risk-

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 21

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
22

taking behavior in adolescents: A comparison of those with and without comorbid

attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 561-574.

Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 36 (4), 336-347.

Morrison, G.M., Furlong, M.J. & Smith, G. (1994). Factors associated with experience
of school violence among general education, leadership class, opportunity class, and
special day class pupils. Education and Treatment of Children, 17, 356-369.

Nabuzoka, D. & Smith, P.K. (1993). Sociometric status and school behaviour of
children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 34, 1435-1448.

Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton,B. & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying Behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-
2100.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues.
In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer Harassment in School: The Plight of the
Vulnerable and Victimized. New York: Guilford Press. (pp. 3-20).

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school
based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 35, 1171-1190.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
(Olweus, 1992b).

Reiter, S., Lapidot-Lefler, N. (2007). Bullying among special education students with
intellectual disabilities: Differences in social adjustment and social skills. Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 174-181.

Roberts, C.M., & Smith, P.R. (1999). Attitudes and behaviour of children toward
peers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 46, 35-50.

Rose, C., Espelage, D.L., & Monda-Amaya, L.E. (2009). Bullying and victimization
rates among students in general and special education: A comparative analysis.
Educational Psychology, 29 (7), 761-776.

Sabornie, E. J. (1994). Social-affective characteristics in early adolescent and adult:

A self psychology perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 217-225.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 22
 Malian: Bully versus Bullied: A Qualitative Study of Students with Disabi
23

Schoen, S., & Schoen, A. (2010). Bullying and harassment in the United States. The
Clearing House, 83, 68-72.

Schafer. M., Korn, S., Smith, P.K., Hunter, S., Mora-Merchan, J.A., Singer, M.M., & Van
der Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 22, 379-394.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.

Sweeting, H. & West, P. (2001). Being different: Correlates of the experience of

teasing and bullying at age 11. Research Papers in Education: Policy & Practice, 16-
225-246.

Taylor, J. (2012, February). The bully questions. New Times for Division for Learning
Disabilities. 30 (1), 1-2, 5.

Torrence, D.A. (1997). “Do you want to be in my gang?”: A study of the existence and
effects of bullying in a primary school class. British Journal of Special education, 24,
158-162.

United States Department of Education: Dear Colleague Letter. Harassment and

Bullying.. (October 2010). United States Department of Education. Retrieved: http//:
www. ed.gov.

Unnever, J.D. & Cornell, D.G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who reports
being bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373.

Weiss, M.P. & Lloyd, J.W. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary
special educators in co-taught and special education settings. The Journal of Special
Education, 36(2), 58-68.

Willard, N. (2007). Educators Guide to Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats. Center for Safe
and Responsible Use of the Internet. http://csrui.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf.

Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D. & Smith, P.K. (1992). Bullying in schools: Mainstream and
special needs. Support for Learning, 7, 3-7.

Whitney. I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3.

Whitney, I., Smith, P.K., & Thompson, D. (2004). Bullying and children with special
education needs. In P.K. Smith & S. Sharp (eds.), School bullying: Insights and
perspectives (pp. 213-240). London: Routledge.

Published by CORE Scholar, 2012 23

 Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 10 [2012], Art. 3
24

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. ( 2003). Direct and relational bullying among primary school
children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 135-155.

Yude, C., Goodman, R. & McConachie, H. (1998). Peer problems of children with
hemiplegic in mainstream primary schools. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 533-541.

http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/vol2/iss10/3 24